Sweden avoiding lockdown

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

To do a comparison of those US states then would you not require a certain level of commonality for it to be comparible ?
Gun control restrictions have a bearing on firearm fatalities and homicides.


A University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine report published by The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery March 6th 2019 found that ten of the states with the most restrictive gun control laws were in the Northeast. Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. Connecticut was lowest being bordered by three of the other nine.


In the Economist report posted here they did not regard European countries on a one fits all basis. They recognised the different geographical areas and severity of the virus going eastwards in Europe, and compared excess Covid deaths on those commonalities. From that they noted that for Northern Europe Sweden`s excess deaths were an exception.

The Economist report clearly compared every state in North America with each other. Montana to California.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

It also compared North America with western Europe.

At the same time that covid-19 was devastating New York, cities in western Europe were also suffering severe outbreaks.

If it can compare New York to Britain, there simply no reason not to also compare Sweden to Portugal.

Also, regarding the gun control example. Do you not realise that only by comparing all these states with each other does that data emerge.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

The Economist report clearly compared every state in North America with each other. Montana to California.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

It also compared North America with western Europe.

At the same time that covid-19 was devastating New York, cities in western Europe were also suffering severe outbreaks.

If it can compare New York to Britain, there simply no reason not to also compare Sweden to Portugal.

Also, regarding the gun control example. Do you not realise that only by comparing all these states with each other does that data emerge.

The Economist did a much more in-depth analysis of Europe than it did of North America and still didn`t see the need to make European wide comparisond.
You posted the link, so if you have a problem with them only doing comparisons on a geographical regional basis, (as well as them taking into account the severity of the virus traveling eastwards in Europe) that backs up what many here have been saying for some time as regards Sweden, then take it up with them.


Those ten states have the same commonality because they are in the same geographical area and have, by US standards, strict gun control.

Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. One being the lowest because it was bordered by three of the others.

Do you think with both those commonalities that the low firearm fatalities and homicides are just a coincidence or that comparing any of them with other states that have neither commonalities would be on a credible like-for-like basis ?

Boggles

sheepysheep wrote: »

The trouble with this is that it's been declared to be happening by the newspapers numerous times before.

Sorry? The newspapers have declared this fact numerous times before?

Twenty cases of the coronavirus variant first discovered in South Africa have been confirmed in central Sweden – the country's first cluster outbreak of the variant that can't be linked to travel.
The Västmanland region, west of Stockholm and home to the city of Västerås, on Wednesday confirmed that 20 people had tested positive for the B.1.351 variant.

None of the cases can be linked to international travel

DylanJM

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry? The newspapers have declared this fact numerous times before?

I imagine by that they mean that they cannot directly trace these cases back to a close contact that has just arrived in the country, suggesting the cases were picked up due to community transmission.

Boggles

DylanJM wrote: »

I imagine by that they mean that they cannot directly trace these cases back to a close contact that has just arrived in the country, suggesting the cases were picked up due to community transmission.

I know.

sheepysheep

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry? The newspapers have declared this fact numerous times before?

Sorry. Replied to the wrong post.

I was making the point that 'Sweden is going into lockdown' has been reported in the newspapers repeatedly in the last few months.

How the S.A variant effects Sweden will definitely be interesting.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

The Economist did a much more in-depth analysis of Europe than it did of North America and still didn`t see the need to make European wide comparisond.
You posted the link, so if you have a problem with them only doing comparisons on a geographical regional basis, (as well as them taking into account the severity of the virus traveling eastwards in Europe) that backs up what many here have been saying for some time as regards Sweden, then take it up with them.


Those ten states have the same commonality because they are in the same geographical area and have, by US standards, strict gun control.

Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. One being the lowest because it was bordered by three of the others.

Do you think with both those commonalities that the low firearm fatalities and homicides are just a coincidence or that comparing any of them with other states that have neither commonalities would be on a credible like-for-like basis ?

The Economist didn't do an in-depth analysis of any region. They provided a brief summary. Dishonest to call this in-depth.

In fact, they didn't even mention Southern Europe or Ireland. I guess neither region is allowed to be analysed by your rationale.

The Economist provided a host of excellently researched data and made it available to everyone open source for further analysis.

There's a thing in Journalism called word count. Any analysis of N or S America or Europe would require a few thousand words.

All you're trying to do is create a false premise that Sweden cannot be compared to Europe as a whole. It's a transparent logical fallacy to declare that because Sweden was compared to Northern Europe that it cannot also be compared to Southern Europe.

Can you provide the research basis for such a premise?

Is 'commonality' a new scientific research term?

Boggles

sheepysheep wrote: »

I was making the point that 'Sweden is going into lockdown' has been reported in the newspapers repeatedly in the last few months.

Maybe some sources were, but the ones I keep an eye certainly weren't.

Sweden didn't actually have the legal framework to introduce certain restrictions, they do now, the mood music from what I have been reading has certainly changed.

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

A University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine report published by The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery March 6th 2019 found that ten of the states with the most restrictive gun control laws were in the Northeast. Seven of the ten had the lowest overall US firearm fatalities and homicides. Connecticut was lowest being bordered by three of the other nine.

Sure but the point here wasn't that restrictive gun laws lead to lower deaths but rather that it is valid to compare a particular state's homicide rates to the national rate (including that state). It could be any measure: unemployment, percentage of retirees etc. You don't need to exclude the state itself for the comparison to be valid. You can exclude the state if you wish but generally this is not done.

the incredible pudding

humberklog wrote: »

How are the people you'd be in contact with feelings on the handling of the situation? From i can read and hear the government still largely have the population on board. Are there significant numbers voicing unhappiness or regret? Are there public demonstrations of discontent or shows of descent within the government, unions, public service bodies?

Not much in the way of public demonstrations (public gatherings have been banned for ages anyhow) though I heard on the news of restaurateurs were doing some demonstrations every day as the financial support they've been promised has been late to arrive. There's uncertainty around how it may increase with the potential lockdown looming and there's arguments in government over whether they should have an enforced lockdown before additional compensation is clearly defined.

The Swedes I've spoken to seem to have faith in the system, it's kind of common here and to show some strong opinions against it usually gets a "well you're not an expert" or "you woulnd't know cause you're not Swedish" kind of response, which is kind of annoying. Given it's not politicians that are the driving the rules so much, there isn't huge anger at the government but the faith in the folkhälsomyndigheten (public health agency) has definitely waned hugely after comparisons with the Nordic neighbors. Support for the government has dropped since the second wave (after having increased a little during the first one).

Most people are just kind of getting on with it as best they can and try make whatever adjustments to living as has been prescribed but there'll always be outliers. Drastic actions and reactions are seemingly not something that happens here a lot. The sample size of folks I'd interact with would be somewhat limited though so I'd take my experience with a grain of salt. It'll be interesting to see if/how attitudes change a lockdown is instilled.

Bit cynical

Report from Germany's DW TV.

Looks like despite restrictions, things are still generally open. You can still meet up with friends (though numbers are restricted), travel around the country and so on.

People used to a diet of RTE here in Ireland are probably wondering why deaths aren't through the roof (daily rates are about half that of Ireland at the moment).

I think the reason for this is that they are not indulging in the stop start cycle common in Ireland and other countries.

1. Panic and impose heavy restrictions -> Cases fall.
2. Restrictions no longer sustainable so are lifted -> Cases rise.
3. Panic again and go to step 1.

The reason Sweden haven't fallen for this is that day-to-day health policy is outside the scope of politics in that country. The people making health policy aren't trying to buy votes by making concessions to the electorate, granting and then withdrawing privileges.

Boggles

Bit cynical wrote: »

The people making health policy aren't trying to buy votes by making concessions to the electorate, granting and then withdrawing privileges.

The just brought in legislation on the back of a couple of very poor opinion polls for the ruling party.

To suggest politicians are not being typical politicians in any democratic country is naive in the extreme.

Also they are worried about the rise in cases and the strains.

We have had a falling number of cases for several weeks, but that decrease has tailed off and it looks like it is heading up again. That is very worrying. Right now we are not bringing in a general shutdown, but we are preparing to be able to use that part of the pandemic law," said Health Minister Lena Hallengren

Bit cynical

Boggles wrote: »

To suggest politicians are not being typical politicians in any democratic country is naive in the extreme.

I'm actually not suggesting that. What is different is that in Sweden day-to-day health policy is much more devolved to the institutions. There are also constitutional restraints on what politicians can do.

the incredible pudding

TBF, the health authorities have been asking for greater powers from the government to put in greater restrictions for a while now. They were to come in this summer but were "fast tracked" during the second wave

sheepysheep

Boggles wrote: »

The just brought in legislation on the back of a couple of very poor opinion polls for the ruling party.

To suggest politicians are not being typical politicians in any democratic country is naive in the extreme.

Also they are worried about the rise in cases and the strains.

In fairness though, all this new legislation really shows is that sooner or later politicians will act in their own best interest.

On the subject of lockdown, right about now would be an ideal time to implement a 6 week lockdown there if they do make the decision that one is necessary.

A once off 6 weeker would take them to the end of march, with the approach of summer and the progression of vaccinations they could probably start to open up for good in April.

It would just be the correct implementation of lockdown as a temporary tactic rather than as an unending strategy.

Bit cynical

sheepysheep wrote: »

On the subject of lockdown, right about now would be an ideal time to implement a 6 week lockdown there if they do make the decision that one is necessary.

A once off 6 weeker would take them to the end of march, with the approach of summer and the progression of vaccinations they could probably start to open up for good in April.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Their daily case rate has leveled off after falling from a peak during the Christmas period. It is possibly even rising slightly but this is hard to say. However the worst of winter will be over soon and with that cases will naturally begin to fall.

The danger with one-off lockdowns is that when they are over there is often an overreaction among people trying to meet up after being cooped up. Then another lockdown has to be imposed. Lockdowns end up not being as "temporary" as initially envisaged. This is what we have seen in European states many of which are struggling with much higher deaths than Sweden.

sheepysheep

Bit cynical wrote: »

Report from Germany's DW TV.

Looks like despite restrictions, things are still generally open. You can still meet up with friends (though numbers are restricted), travel around the country and so on.

People used to a diet of RTE here in Ireland are probably wondering why deaths aren't through the roof (daily rates are about half that of Ireland at the moment).

I think the reason for this is that they are not indulging in the stop start cycle common in Ireland and other countries.

1. Panic and impose heavy restrictions -> Cases fall.
2. Restrictions no longer sustainable so are lifted -> Cases rise.
3. Panic again and go to step 1.

The reason Sweden haven't fallen for this is that day-to-day health policy is outside the scope of politics in that country. The people making health policy aren't trying to buy votes by making concessions to the electorate, granting and then withdrawing privileges.

I think our second Lockdown really emphasises this point.

We corralled people up before Christmas and then set them loose just as the more transmissable UK variant showed up.

There's surely a case that the second lockdown is directly/indirectly responsible for the very high number of January deaths.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

The Economist didn't do an in-depth analysis of any region. They provided a brief summary. Dishonest to call this in-depth.

In fact, they didn't even mention Southern Europe or Ireland. I guess neither region is allowed to be analysed by your rationale.

The Economist provided a host of excellently researched data and made it available to everyone open source for further analysis.

There's a thing in Journalism called word count. Any analysis of N or S America or Europe would require a few thousand words.

All you're trying to do is create a false premise that Sweden cannot be compared to Europe as a whole. It's a transparent logical fallacy to declare that because Sweden was compared to Northern Europe that it cannot also be compared to Southern Europe.

Can you provide the research basis for such a premise?

Is 'commonality' a new scientific research term?

Will you ever get over yourself.
You found the Economist report and after reading the first section did your own analysis. I read it through and the analysis you did relating to Sweden to fit your narrative is not what the report says in relation to Sweden. Simple as that.


The Economist did not compare countries on a European wide basis. It did so based on geography and that Covid was more severe going eastwards.
Of the four regions the report noted that for Northern Europe Sweden`s excess Covid deaths were an "exception" to all other countries in the region. Exactly what many here have been saying for a long time. Theu posted graphs which clearly show how much of an "exception".


If you wish to run around Europe or the rest of the world finding countries to suit your narrative, away with you. But to attempt to do so based on the Economist report, and attempting to say that if we should all used or imagination we would see what the report really meant to show, is so blatantly dishonest at this stage it`s comic farce.

sheepysheep

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. Their daily case rate has leveled off after falling from a peak during the Christmas period. It is possibly even rising slightly but this is hard to say. However the worst of winter will be over soon and with that cases will naturally begin to fall.

The danger with one-off lockdowns is that when they are over there is often an overreaction among people trying to meet up after being cooped up. Then another lockdown has to be imposed. Lockdowns end up not being as "temporary" as initially envisaged. This is what we have seen in European states many of which are struggling with much higher deaths than Sweden.

Yes, Their ICU and death stats are very distinctly downward. I don't believe that one will be implemented and I'm not advocating for one.

I would see a lockdown there now however as being distinctly different to those in W Europe for the last year. By April, with the end of winter, the longer days, vaccines numbers increasing daily and whatever herd immunity already exists no second lockdown would ever be necessary.

Basically, I'm hoping for a distinct change in mood music over the next 6 weeks regarding this pandemic.

Bit cynical

sheepysheep wrote: »

There's surely a case that the second lockdown is directly/indirectly responsible for the very high number of January deaths.

I think so too. People had been constrained and isolated for several weeks. Even in the summer, restrictions had never completely been lifted and there was an element of fear keeping people indoors during the early part of the pandemic. So when there was even just a bit of lifting of restrictions during the Christmas period, people took advantage of it, and of course, cases rose. It also gave politicians an opportunity to point out how the electorate can't be trusted and further restrictions were necessary and so, of course, the whole thing repeats.

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm actually not suggesting that. What is different is that in Sweden day-to-day health policy is much more devolved to the institutions. There are also constitutional restraints on what politicians can do.

My understanding was that all health care decisions relating to the pandemic were in the hand of the Public Health Authority until devolving to the local authorities in October when they then starting introducing their own restrictions and recommendations.


As already mentioned by the incredible pudding, parliament sat in emergency session over Christmas to introduce new legislation to deal with the pandemic, but that us basically are the same legislation they had under the Coronavirus Act from early 2020 that the government allowed to lapse at the end of June when they were not renewed

Bit cynical

charlie14 wrote: »

My understanding was that all health care decisions relating to the pandemic were in the hand of the Public Health Authority until devolving to the local authorities in October when they then starting introducing their own restrictions and recommendations.

Yes, however the point I was trying to make is that politicians have tended to take much more of a back seat with regard to the pandemic in Sweden than in other countries. Possibly someone living in Sweden could correct me here if I am wrong on this point.

It is the prominence of politicians in Ireland and other countries, I would suggest, that leads to the stop-start cycle we have seen and that in many countries has led to much higher deaths than Sweden.

sheepysheep

n

charlie14 wrote: »

Will you ever get over yourself.
You found the Economist report and after reading the first section did your own analysis. I read it through and the analysis you did relating to Sweden to fit your narrative is not what the report says in relation to Sweden. Simple as that.


The Economist did not compare countries on a European wide basis. It did so based on geography and that Covid was more severe going eastwards.
Of the four regions the report noted that for Northern Europe Sweden`s excess Covid deaths were an "exception" to all other countries in the region. Exactly what many here have been saying for a long time. Theu posted graphs which clearly show how much of an "exception".


If you wish to run around Europe or the rest of the world finding countries to suit your narrative, away with you. But to attempt to do so based on the Economist report, and attempting to say that if we should all used or imagination we would see what the report really meant to show, is so blatantly dishonest at this stage it`s comic farce.

Congratulations. Endless deflection, Strawmen, and bad science.

You managed to fit 4 Strawmen and 1 Logical Fallacy into that piece.

Strawman 1: I read the whole report not the first paragraph as you say.

Strawman 2: No Narrative. I have clearly stated that the report clearly shows that Sweden excess deaths are poor compared to Northern Europe and better than 15 other countries in Europe.

Strawman3: I'm nor running around Europe. I'm posting all excess death data available for Europe and comparing the results for all of Europe.

Strawman4: No one was requested to use their imagination. Simply look at data.

Logical fallacy: Your continued assertion that Sweden can only be compared to Northern Europe.

Bad Science. Everything.

You were asked to provide a scientific premises for this. The economist report would only be an implementation of the premise if one exists.

As you have held this opinion for months I'm sure you will have plenty of citeable reports at hand.

Thankfully, you've given up on 'commonality' whatever that was.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

n

Congratulations. Endless deflection, Strawmen, and bad science.

You managed to fit 4 Strawmen and 1 Logical Fallacy into that piece.

Strawman 1: I read the whole report not the first paragraph as you say.

Strawman 2: No Narrative. I have clearly stated that the report clearly shows that Sweden excess deaths are poor compared to Northern Europe and better than 15 other countries in Europe.

Strawman3: I'm nor running around Europe. I'm posting all excess death data available for Europe and comparing the results for all of Europe.

Strawman4: No one was requested to use their imagination. Simply look at data.

Logical fallacy: Your continued assertion that Sweden can only be compared to Northern Europe.

Bad Science. Everything.

You were asked to provide a scientific premises for this. The economist report would only be an implementation of the premise if one exists.

As you have held this opinion for months I'm sure you will have plenty of citeable reports at hand.

Thankfully, you've given up on 'commonality' whatever that was.

1. In which case you choose to ignore what the report actually says when making comparisons on Sweden`s excess Covid deaths

2. The report did not make any comparison to any country other than those of Northern Europe where it noted them as an "exception"

3. You have been running around Europe comparisons other countries to Sweden that suits your narrative using a report that did not do that.

4. The data in the report is self explanatory. The data is what it is. The report covers four areas of Europe based on geography and the severity of Covid moving eastwards. For Northern Europe it notes Sweden`s excess deaths as "an exception" and illustrates by just how much of "an exception".

Bad posting attempting to portray a report saying something it clearly does not and attempting to making comparisons it does not.

Why would I need to provide a scientific premise quoting a report you post when you are actually the one attempting to portray the report as saying something it clearly does not.

In this instance commonality would be the geographical area of Northern Europe and the same severity of the Coronavirus where the report states it was more severe travelling Eastwards in Europe

charlie14

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes, however the point I was trying to make is that politicians have tended to take much more of a back seat with regard to the pandemic in Sweden than in other countries. Possibly someone living in Sweden could correct me here if I am wrong on this point.

It is the prominence of politicians in Ireland and other countries, I would suggest, that leads to the stop-start cycle we have seen and that in many countries has led to much higher deaths than Sweden.

That was the case in Sweden up until the regional authorities got the power to make their own decisions. That is really what forced Sweden`s politicians to finally act and has resulted in the Public Health Authority being largely sidelined from sole decision making.

I am no fan of Sweden`s PHA for obvious reasons, but I would have a small degree of sympathy for them. With the original strategy the government was happy to stand well back. If it had worked they would have been first in to claim credit, otherwise it was all the fault of the PHA as we had no power to act etc.etc. The devolving of power to the local authorities changed all that and forced the government to act.

charlie14

sheepysheep wrote: »

Yes, Their ICU and death stats are very distinctly downward. I don't believe that one will be implemented and I'm not advocating for one.

I would see a lockdown there now however as being distinctly different to those in W Europe for the last year. By April, with the end of winter, the longer days, vaccines numbers increasing daily and whatever herd immunity already exists no second lockdown would ever be necessary.

Basically, I'm hoping for a distinct change in mood music over the next 6 weeks regarding this pandemic.

Sounds very much like that old tune that was being played here when Uppsala back in October announced it was imposing it`s own local lockdown measures.

When is a lockdown not a lockdown ? When it`s in Sweden

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would I need to provide a scientific premise quoting a report you post when you are actually the one attempting to portray the report as saying something it clearly does not.

Can you provide any quote in the report which explicitly declares that Sweden cannot be compared with all of Europe? Yes/No.

If Yes, please provide it.

If No, then it is only your assumption that Sweden cannot be compared with Europe. Because you don't respect science you'll go with deflection and assumption.

However, if you could provide the research report upon which you based your pre-Economist report opinion please enlighten us all.

I'm not expecting any report from you btw. Unless you have something from The Sun.

BTW this is a report which you have consistently refused to acknowledge which clearly shows that Sweden can be compared with the EU27 on a load of matters.

https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2018_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf

Try and address this report this time and please debunk its OECD veracity.

sheepysheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Sounds very much like that old tune that was being played here when Uppsala back in October announced it was imposing it`s own local lockdown measures.

When is a lockdown not a lockdown ? When it`s in Sweden

Well, you're declared it to be in lockdown for months.

However, someone else just posted a report that it might be going into lockdown soon.

Can't be both.

Boggles

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. Their daily case rate has leveled off after falling from a peak during the Christmas period. It is possibly even rising slightly but this is hard to say. However the worst of winter will be over soon and with that cases will naturally begin to fall.

Cases are up 25% in Stockholm the past couple of weeks.

Their 7 day moving average is definitely upward.

There is a big snow festival of sorts happening early March, the authorities have flagged it as a potential super spreader event.

sheepysheep

Boggles wrote: »

Cases are up 25% in Stockholm the past couple of weeks.

Their 7 day moving average is definitely upward.

There is a big snow festival of sorts happening early March, the authorities have flagged it as a potential super spreader event.

There's a bit of an uptick alright but ICU admissions, deaths on the downward slope.

This site does a good graph of all three.

https://www.covid19insweden.com/en/